Pena v. Roc Nation LLC
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-07009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pena v. Roc Nation LLC, Judge Rearden dismissed Pena’s claims against Daniel Day without prejudice because Day was not served.
Daniel Day, whose claims in the action were dismissed without prejudice, and Joel Pena, who brought the claims without a lawyer.
What happened
In Pena v. Roc Nation LLC, Joel Pena, representing himself, sued Roc Nation LLC, S. Carter Enterprises LLC, and Daniel Day for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
The court gave Pena three extensions totaling more than 60 additional days to serve Day. Pena did not file proof that Day had been served by the final deadline or afterward.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismissed the claims against Day without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service of the summons and complaint. The court directed the clerk to remove Day from the action.
The detailed version
- Pena v. Roc Nation LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07009
- Rearden
- June 17, 2024
Background
Joel Pena brought this action without a lawyer against Roc Nation LLC, S. Carter Enterprises LLC, and Daniel Day. His claims were for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The opinion concerns only whether Pena properly served Day.
Pena filed the complaint on August 9, 2023. The court initially set the ordinary service deadline for November 7, 2023. After Pena requested more time, the court extended the deadline for service on Roc Nation and Day. Pena later completed service on Roc Nation on February 6, 2024, but he did not file proof of service on Day.
On March 7, 2024, the court extended the deadline for serving Day to March 30, 2024. The court warned Pena that failure to serve Day by that date could lead to dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m). Pena did not serve Day by March 30 or afterward.
Legal standard
Rule 4(c) places responsibility for serving the summons and complaint on the plaintiff. Rule 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If a defendant is not served within that time, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or set another service deadline, after giving the plaintiff notice.
Ruling
The court found that Pena had received three extensions of time to serve Day, totaling more than 60 additional days, and had been warned about the possible consequence of failing to meet the final deadline. Because Pena did not serve Day or file proof of service, the court dismissed the claims against Day without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The clerk was directed to terminate Day from the action. The opinion does not rule on the merits of Pena’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.